Back to M7.1 — Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence

Observed vs Simulated — Goodness of Fit

A physics-based simulation of this earthquake, compared against the seismograms the network actually recorded. M7.1 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence · 2019-07-06 03:19:53 UTC

Download the full report (PDF) Includes per-station waveform and displacement pages. Generated 2026-08-04T08:29:10Z · BBP job job_d80b0a978295492fac0a

Before reading the result

What this measurement does and does not establish.

Emulated hardware. The simulation ran on arm64 under emulation. Amplitudes are not SCEC-reference-accurate, and this measurement cannot separate the platform from the model.

One realization. A single stochastic rupture, not an ensemble. The bias below is one draw; a second run with a different seed would give a different number.

What a pass means. Consistency with recordings at these 30 stations, for this event, under this velocity model, on this hardware, within a factor of 1.99. It is not a general statement about BBP and not a prediction of accuracy at an unrecorded site.

Result

Mean within pass band 30 stations · 63 spectral periods · BBP simulated
mean |bias|
0.240
a factor of 1.27×
pass band
0.69
a factor of 1.99×, declared before the run
sigma
0.557
station-to-station scatter
cross-check
0.311
recomputed here from the waveforms

The metric is ln(observed / simulated) RotD50 spectral acceleration, averaged over stations. Positive means the simulation under-predicts — real shaking was larger. Basis: BBP RotD50 residuals (authoritative).

Residual by period

Mean ln(obs/sim) at each spectral period. A structure responds at its own period, so agreement at one period says nothing about another.

Period Bias Simulation vs. band
0.1s -0.217 over-predicts by 24% within
0.3s -0.295 over-predicts by 34% within
1s -0.700 over-predicts by 101% outside band
3s -0.175 over-predicts by 19% within
Read the mean with this in mind. The mean is within the pass band, but the residual at 1s is outside it — the simulation over-predicts by 101% at 1s. A single mean over periods cannot represent that.

Goodness of fit across the spectrum

Mean residual with its ±1σ band, against the pass band. Diamonds are the Broadband Platform’s own RotD50 residuals; the line is this report’s independent recomputation from the waveforms.

Goodness-of-fit bias versus period

Where the stations are

Each station coloured by its PGA residual. Red means the simulation under-predicted the recording; blue means it over-predicted.

Map of compared stations coloured by residual

Station summary — three independent sources

30 stations with both a recording and a simulated seismogram. Scroll sideways for the full set of columns.

Station Dist
(km)
Vs30
BBP
Vs30
ShakeMap
Chan PGA (g)
ShakeMap
PGA (g)
obspy
PGA (g)
BBP
PGV (cm/s)
ShakeMap
PGV (cm/s)
obspy
PGV (cm/s)
BBP
PGD (cm)
obspy
PGD (cm)
BBP
PGD
obs/sim
ln(obs/
sim)
Flags
CI.TOW2 15.6 326 326 HNE 0.4287 0.3663 0.3275 54.1 52.4 38.2 25.71 27.79 0.93x +0.112
CI.SRT 16.1 265 265 HNE 0.3112 0.3095 0.3957 41.9 42.2 73.6 20.75 75.74 0.27x -0.246
CI.Q0072 18.8 260 260 HNE 0.3219 0.2990 0.2741 32.6 29.3 40.8 8.07 28.31 0.28x +0.087
CI.WVP2 28.1 658 658 HNE 0.1831 0.1783 0.1152 18.3 16.4 11.8 8.03 11.68 0.69x +0.437
CI.WNM 28.8 293 293 HNE 0.2249 0.1845 0.2478 8.6 7.3 29.8 4.43 14.18 0.31x -0.295 Outl
CI.WBM 31.8 366 366 HNE 0.1865 0.2261 0.3085 15.3 25.1 39.4 5.67 26.26 0.22x -0.311 Inco,Outl
CI.LRL 33.1 618 618 HNE 0.1950 0.1781 0.1315 12.7 12.3 12.0 4.76 11.91 0.40x +0.304
CI.MPM 33.6 545 545 HNE 0.0905 0.0867 0.2889 9.9 12.0 30.0 7.31 24.53 0.30x -1.204 Inco,Outl
CI.CCC 34.5 474 474 HNE 0.5691 0.4573 0.1168 74.8 77.5 11.7 20.34 7.93 2.57x +1.365
CI.WRV2 37.3 352 352 HNE 0.0996 0.0946 0.1454 14.9 13.9 13.7 5.92 10.53 0.56x -0.429
CI.WMF 45.0 534 534 HNE 0.0594 0.0588 0.1173 9.1 7.6 11.8 5.28 7.87 0.67x -0.691
CI.WBS 55.3 729 729 HNE 0.1646 0.1554 0.0775 9.5 9.4 12.8 2.40 11.68 0.21x +0.696
CI.DAW 55.8 334 334 HNE 0.0576 0.0463 0.1310 3.0 3.0 14.7 1.00 11.53 0.09x -1.040
CI.WOR 58.6 746 746 HNE 0.0923 0.0848 0.0657 5.3 4.2 5.7 1.92 7.89 0.24x +0.256
CI.DTP 60.1 711 711 HNE 0.0342 0.0326 0.0641 5.6 6.0 5.3 3.08 5.62 0.55x -0.676
CE.43158 60.9 283 283 HNE 0.0582 0.0638 0.1168 6.3 11.9 15.5 7.60 8.13 0.93x -0.605
CI.WHF 68.4 435 435 HNE 0.1036 0.1007 0.0721 5.4 5.5 9.5 1.78 7.02 0.25x +0.333
NN.QSM 69.3 379 379 HHE 0.1144 0.0816 0.1078 3.4 3.4 18.4 3.39 12.97 0.26x -0.279 Glit,Outl
CI.CCA 78.3 342 342 HNE 0.0430 0.0419 0.0639 4.6 4.4 10.4 2.81 10.54 0.27x -0.422
CI.ISA 79.9 438 438 HNE 0.0317 0.0299 0.0581 2.3 2.2 5.7 1.25 6.05 0.21x -0.663
CI.Q0068 80.7 343 343 HNE 0.0021 0.0495 0.0649 0.6 4.3 8.8 2.43 7.66 0.32x -0.270 Outl
CI.APL 81.0 599 599 HNE 0.0610 0.0599 0.0508 5.7 4.7 4.7 2.10 5.04 0.42x +0.164
CI.CWC 86.2 663 663 HNE 0.0203 0.0165 0.0443 2.7 2.4 5.1 1.90 5.42 0.35x -0.991
CI.WAS2 86.5 784 784 HNE 0.0510 0.0485 0.0308 2.6 2.3 3.6 1.06 4.07 0.26x +0.454
CI.HAR 88.6 344 344 HNE 0.0866 0.0861 0.0642 11.5 12.4 8.9 3.01 5.89 0.51x +0.293
CI.GSC 88.7 371 371 HNE 0.0411 0.0397 0.0841 6.4 5.2 7.1 2.91 6.06 0.48x -0.750
CI.CGO 88.7 713 713 HNE 0.0303 0.0297 0.0462 3.9 3.7 5.4 1.39 6.22 0.22x -0.441
CI.TEH 91.4 780 780 HNE 0.0416 0.0408 0.0284 3.7 3.4 5.9 1.30 8.00 0.16x +0.361
CI.LMR2 93.3 735 735 HNE 0.0313 0.0279 0.0332 2.7 2.9 2.5 1.22 2.56 0.47x -0.172
NN.GWY 95.6 684 684 HHE 0.0528 0.0346 0.0446 3.4 3.0 10.4 4.52 10.47 0.43x -0.254 Glit,Outl
ShakeMap = amplitudes the seismic network reported in stationlist.json. obspy = the same recordings fetched from FDSN and processed here. BBP = simulated. The first two should agree closely; where they do not, the ShakeMap quality flags usually explain why.
PGD is the animation pipeline's own number on both sides, read from the displacement each side hands to Blender — a different processing chain from the PGA and PGV columns, and from each other. See the displacement pages at the end.

Cross-check — how far apart are the two ‘observed’ sources?

The amplitudes the network reported in ShakeMap against the same recordings re-fetched and processed here. These should agree closely; where they do not, the ShakeMap quality flags usually explain why. A systematic offset here would be a processing fault, not physics.

Observed amplitude cross-check versus distance

Residual against distance

A trend with distance points at the attenuation model rather than the source: the simulation losing energy faster or slower than the real crust does.

Residual versus distance at four periods

Response spectra, station by station

Observed and simulated response spectra at every compared station.

Response spectra for every station

Per-station detail

Nearest first. Open a station for its three-component waveform overlay and the displacement record that drives the shaking animations. Figures load when opened.

CI.TOW2 15.6 km ln(obs/sim) +0.112
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.TOW2 Displacement record at CI.TOW2
CI.SRT 16.1 km ln(obs/sim) -0.246
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.SRT Displacement record at CI.SRT
CI.Q0072 18.8 km ln(obs/sim) +0.087
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.Q0072 Displacement record at CI.Q0072
CI.WVP2 28.1 km ln(obs/sim) +0.437
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.WVP2 Displacement record at CI.WVP2
CI.WNM 28.8 km ln(obs/sim) -0.295
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.WNM Displacement record at CI.WNM
CI.WBM 31.8 km ln(obs/sim) -0.311
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.WBM Displacement record at CI.WBM
CI.LRL 33.1 km ln(obs/sim) +0.304
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.LRL Displacement record at CI.LRL
CI.MPM 33.6 km ln(obs/sim) -1.204
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.MPM Displacement record at CI.MPM
CI.CCC 34.5 km ln(obs/sim) +1.365
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.CCC Displacement record at CI.CCC
CI.WRV2 37.3 km ln(obs/sim) -0.429
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.WRV2 Displacement record at CI.WRV2
CI.WMF 45.0 km ln(obs/sim) -0.691
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.WMF Displacement record at CI.WMF
CI.WBS 55.3 km ln(obs/sim) +0.696
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.WBS Displacement record at CI.WBS
CI.DAW 55.8 km ln(obs/sim) -1.040
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.DAW Displacement record at CI.DAW
CI.WOR 58.6 km ln(obs/sim) +0.256
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.WOR Displacement record at CI.WOR
CI.DTP 60.1 km ln(obs/sim) -0.676
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.DTP Displacement record at CI.DTP
CE.43158 60.9 km ln(obs/sim) -0.605
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CE.43158 Displacement record at CE.43158
CI.WHF 68.4 km ln(obs/sim) +0.333
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.WHF Displacement record at CI.WHF
NN.QSM 69.3 km ln(obs/sim) -0.279
Observed versus simulated acceleration at NN.QSM Displacement record at NN.QSM
CI.CCA 78.3 km ln(obs/sim) -0.422
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.CCA Displacement record at CI.CCA
CI.ISA 79.9 km ln(obs/sim) -0.663
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.ISA Displacement record at CI.ISA
CI.Q0068 80.7 km ln(obs/sim) -0.270
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.Q0068 Displacement record at CI.Q0068
CI.APL 81.0 km ln(obs/sim) +0.164
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.APL Displacement record at CI.APL
CI.CWC 86.2 km ln(obs/sim) -0.991
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.CWC Displacement record at CI.CWC
CI.WAS2 86.5 km ln(obs/sim) +0.454
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.WAS2 Displacement record at CI.WAS2
CI.HAR 88.6 km ln(obs/sim) +0.293
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.HAR Displacement record at CI.HAR
CI.GSC 88.7 km ln(obs/sim) -0.750
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.GSC Displacement record at CI.GSC
CI.CGO 88.7 km ln(obs/sim) -0.441
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.CGO Displacement record at CI.CGO
CI.TEH 91.4 km ln(obs/sim) +0.361
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.TEH Displacement record at CI.TEH
CI.LMR2 93.3 km ln(obs/sim) -0.172
Observed versus simulated acceleration at CI.LMR2 Displacement record at CI.LMR2
NN.GWY 95.6 km ln(obs/sim) -0.254
Observed versus simulated acceleration at NN.GWY Displacement record at NN.GWY

Provenance

Simulation

produced by
BBP simulated
BBP job id
job_d80b0a978295492fac0a
BBP version
22.4.0
method
GP
realizations
1 of 1 succeeded — a single stochastic rupture, not an ensemble; the bias below is one draw
realization used
r0001
sites in job spec
job submitted
2026-08-04T08:01:54Z
per-site Vs30 from
submit-time record (/app/plots/gof_work/ci38457511/compare/station_specs.json)

Source parameters

magnitude used
hypocentre
depth
strike / dip / rake
mechanism source
USGS moment tensor, nodal plane 1 — the conjugate plane is equally consistent with the tensor and gives different amplitudes

Velocity model

region used
Mojave500
native for this location
Mojave500 — not installed, so the run is approximate. LABasin500 carries a deep sedimentary basin that Ridgecrest does not have, which would amplify 0.3-1 s motion.
calibration
M7.1 against GP's ~M5.5 floor
platform
arm64 under emulation — amplitudes are not SCEC-reference-accurate; this number measures BBP plus Rosetta and cannot separate them

Observed data and processing

Station selection

search radius
100.0 km
policy
all usable within radius
stations on event
943
without FDSN code
0 — cannot be queried at all
candidates
30
usable records
30 (0 returned no usable 3-component set)
in this report
30 with both observed and simulated
distance range
15.6 – 95.6 km

Instrumentation

channel priority
HN?, EN?, HH?, BH?, EH?
channels used
HH, HN
data centres
EARTHSCOPE, NCEDC, SCEDC
mixed instrument types
yes — strong-motion and broadband are both present, which puts a second variable into the residual
Vs30 source
ShakeMap stationlist (per-station)

Signal processing

window
origin −60.0 s to +300.0 s (requested)
records not starting as requested
2 of 30 — triggered instruments whose data begins later. Each trace's true start is measured and used; assuming the requested lead would misplace them.
response removal
to acceleration and velocity separately, pre-filter (0.05, 0.1, 20.0, 25.0) Hz
resampled to
100.0 Hz
time origin
t = 0 is the rupture origin for both observed and simulated traces on every overlay

How to read this report

The metric

definition
ln(observed / simulated) RotD50 spectral acceleration, averaged across stations at each period.
sign
POSITIVE means the simulation under-predicts — real shaking was larger. NEGATIVE means it over-predicts.
scale
It is a log ratio: ±0.10 is about ±10%, ±0.69 is a factor of 2, ±1.10 is a factor of 3.
sigma
The station-to-station spread around that average. A large sigma with a small bias means the model is right on average and wrong site by site.

Reading the pattern

short-period poor,
long-period good
Points at high-frequency attenuation or near-surface site response rather than the source.
long-period poor,
short-period good
Points at the source — corner frequency, stress drop — or at basin response in the velocity model.
one station far off
Usually 3D site or directivity effects that a 1D layered velocity model cannot reproduce by construction. Check whether it is driving the sigma before treating it as model error.

What this does not tell you

A pass means the simulation is consistent with recordings at these stations, for this event, under this velocity model, on this hardware. It is not a general statement about BBP, and it is not a prediction of accuracy at an unrecorded site.